HPX170 with CINEMEK G35

F

filmer1001

Active member
Hello 35mm techy adapter world.

I just purchased a HPX170 with the CINEMEK G35 adapter. I come from the film world and I have to say that my results with the adapter are GREAT. No moving parts, no batteries (unlike Letus, Redrock, SGPRO and Brevis). This system is hands down the best out there in my opinion. I have been reading other message boards that talk about adapters and what they think works and what doesn't. But I have discovered that no one talks about LIGHTING. How are you suppose to judge the quality of an adapter and try and compare it to FILM if you are not going to Light Properly??? There is no reason to use the adapter unless you are going to shoot in good light, or any other system. If you have great light your stuff is going to look good no matter what. The G35 is just another tool to help achieve a better look. I keep seeing all these postings on the "Bokeh" and which adapter achieves the best one but who cares about the "Bokeh if the light is shi*? the "Bokeh" cant make bad lit footage look nice. Also, good "Bokeh" relies heavily on LENS choice. If everyone goes out there and shoots great lit stuff people will clearly see that the G35 Adapter is the best choice hands down.

So unless you want to show up on set and have your $2 motor inside of your $1,200 adapter break and piss off the whole set, save yourself the time and get the G35. Easy setup, great feel, amazing manufacturing and an all around great system.

TEST footage. all my settings and codecs are messed up so it kind of strobes in some parts in HD, but the SD version is clean.

http://vimeo.com/1959100

Thanks,

Dana

www.danamorrisphoto.com
 
Last edited:
nice, I just wish the combo wasn't so soft. seems like the canon a1 is alot shrper with the g35.
 
filmer1001 said:
Hello 35mm techy adapter world.

I just purchased a HPX170 with the CINEMEK G35 adapter. I come from the film world and I have to say that my results with the adapter are GREAT. No moving parts, no batteries (unlike Letus, Redrock, SGPRO and Brevis). This system is hands down the best out there in my opinion. I have been reading other message boards that talk about adapters and what they think works and what doesn't. But I have discovered that no one talks about LIGHTING. How are you suppose to judge the quality of an adapter and try and compare it to FILM if you are not going to Light Properly??? There is no reason to use the adapter unless you are going to shoot in good light, or any other system. If you have great light your stuff is going to look good no matter what. The G35 is just another tool to help achieve a better look. I keep seeing all these postings on the "Bokeh" and which adapter achieves the best one but who cares about the "Bokeh if the light is shi*? the "Bokeh" cant make bad lit footage look nice. Also, good "Bokeh" relies heavily on LENS choice. If everyone goes out there and shoots great lit stuff people will clearly see that the G35 Adapter is the best choice hands down.

So unless you want to show up on set and have your $2 motor inside of your $1,200 Letus or Redrock system break and piss of the whole set, save yourself the time and get the G35. Easy setup, great feel, amazing manufacturing and an all around great system.

TEST footage. all my settings and codecs are messed up so it kind of strobes in some parts in HD, but the SD version is clean.

http://vimeo.com/1959100

Thanks,

Dana

www.danamorrisphoto.com
Click to expand...

Hey Dana, thanks for sharing the footage and Welcome to DVXuser.

I'm all about trying out the G35! And, can't wait to get my hands on one and a PL or Canon mount, to be totally honest. Different film stocks for different looks and occassions.

I think everyone here will agree that lighting is important. What we're concerned about when it comes to light loss is not actually lighting scenes but the AMOUNT of light that you need in comparison to other low cost solutions.

You pretty much have to double your indoor lighting kit with a G35.

Add to that the limited Dynamic Range of Prosumer Camcorders, which means you have to hit background objects and even subjects a bit more directly with light making things seem a lot more unnatural, and you should see where we're coming from.

I think someone coming from a Film World could really see the advantage of having a faster, more resolute adapter giving the disadvantages of Prosumer offerings today.

So, it's not a matter of "not lighting", it's a matter of "Now my lighting kit costs more. Why am I not just shooting RED?".

You have good points, regardless. I think light loss and lighting aren't as close to each other in this respect as they are in others. As Far as Bokeh Goes?

... TOOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON BOKEH AROUND HERE! WAY TOO MUCH. I can't agree with you more. You use Walmart Lenses and you get Walmart Bokeh. I have no idea why it's this massive deal when people are producing stellar content with so called "bad Bokeh".

See Faith's footage with the Letus Extreme and TVACOM's footage with the Letus Extreme, which supposedly has terrible bokeh?

Way too much Emphasis on something that's subjective to begin with.
 
combo?? it the footage has some post work done so that is taking away from some of the "sharpness". I don't really like DIGI Sharp stuff.
 
Kholi,

I understand your point with light loss. But eveyone on here wants miracles with these systems and wants them magically make there stuff look like film, and trying to use a little cheap interview lightkit won't do the trick. I would way rather add more money to a budget for more power than having a little motor in an adapter go out.

its not the "arrow", its the "indian".
 
filmer1001 said:
Kholi,

I understand your point with light loss. But eveyone on here wants miracles with these systems and wants them magically make there stuff look like film, and trying to use a little cheap interview lightkit won't do the trick. I would way rather add more money to a budget for more power than having a little motor in an adapter go out.

its not the "arrow", its the "indian".
Click to expand...

Absolutely. There are several ways to get the same thing done. Some people can really do wonders with an interview light kit and some can't do much at all; I'm in the latter!

Motors in adapters can and will go out at sometime, can't deny that. But, same goes for anything electronic. Sometimes crappy things happen.

There's a lot more that goes into adding more light, and you said it: you add more light, you add more power, you add more manpower, you've become a larger production, you need much more money.

Always more than one really thinks about, which goes back to "Hell, why don't I just use this interview Kit and rent a RED?".

We're still limited as far as the Camera itself goes, but again I'm all for trying out a G35 m'self.
 
kholi,

agreed. I shoot RED shows all the time and it takes just as much if not more money and man power to shoot with. It may be better with less light but you still have to have all the grip equip. and crew to knock down hot areas and make up for all the areas Digital systems lack. I have seen plenty of people shoot stuff on RED that looks like a crappy digital camera. It just seems to me that most people on these boards aren't really DP's and aren't really shooting on Sets and just argue over pointless tests and numbers instead of going out and shooting.
 
that is some beautiful footage.
Question, how much more light sensitive is the HPX170 compared to, let's say, the canon XH A1?

Wondering simply because at some point perhaps the tradeoff of light loss from the adapter may be made up of the increased sensitivity of the camera. Not to mention the "less noisy" gain which can pump up the exposure some without destroying a clean image.
 
filmer1001 said:
Kholi,

I understand your point with light loss. But eveyone on here wants miracles with these systems and wants them magically make there stuff look like film, and trying to use a little cheap interview lightkit won't do the trick. I would way rather add more money to a budget for more power than having a little motor in an adapter go out.

its not the "arrow", its the "indian".
Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense to keep saying "just add more light!" Beside the financial expenses, you have to lug around more equipments, your setup time increase and generally you have to work harder to get the same shot with a more light efficient adapter.

Besides, it's not like the moving parts adapter have a ridiculously high failure rate. If they do people wouldn't be using them. It's all about tradeoff. I've spent so far nearly $1500 on a light kit, which is on the low end but I've gotten great results with them. If you're telling me that I have to spent $3,000 to get the same shot I've been getting, I would not consider that a fair trade, even if the adapter is robust. I need to be able to move quickly and setup quickly, so low light loss for me is a must. Others may not have the same need.
 
i am not positive of the comparison but i know that it is the same if not better than the updated version of the HVX. a lot of that was shot with very little light and it performed perfect.
 
the kind of filmmaking you are talking about is not the kind i am talking about. no offense, but filmmaking is not a quick process and is not a cheap one. if your $1500 light kit works fine for you, that is perfect. sounds like for what you are doing, you have it all figured out.
 
filmer1001 said:
kholi,

agreed. I shoot RED shows all the time and it takes just as much if not more money and man power to shoot with. It may be better with less light but you still have to have all the grip equip. and crew to knock down hot areas and make up for all the areas Digital systems lack. I have seen plenty of people shoot stuff on RED that looks like a crappy digital camera. It just seems to me that most people on these boards aren't really DP's and aren't really shooting on Sets and just argue over pointless tests and numbers instead of going out and shooting.
Click to expand...

It takes more manpower, true, but the lighting package will definitely be larger to achieve the same natural light as it would be when shooting RED and if you shoot often then you probably already know the costs of Lighting outweigh the costs of Camera Crew. It gets close if your adapter loses somewhere around half of a stop before the addition of a lens, and this is comparing the two systems at 320ASA.

Leaving out who shoots what on DVXuser, not that I disagree with you, the technical difference between shooting:

HPX170 + G35 = 200ASA or Less (200 is very generous, I'm sure)

Vs.

RED ONE at a native 320ASA

It's pretty obvious that your going to require a lot more wattage when dealing with the former. And, again, that even goes without mentioning limited Dynamic Range. Where y'll need more direct light for important scene elements with the G35 + 170 combo. Not saying that is BAD by any means, but when you're talking about lighting perhaps the fair way to discuss is to realize that the prosumer cameras already have built-in "limitations" that we can't ignore. Such as speed and dynamic range.

On a purely technical level, it would probably cost more for an indoor shoot with the G35 than it would shooting RED on the same production, even with the extra two hands you'll need to handle the RED efficiently.

It's either that or you sacrifice a lot of image detail and light with what you have available when dealing with "Slower" 35mm adapters and Prosumer Grade Cameras.

Some will be able to deal with the 1.5 stops of light loss, others won't have the money to deal with it; no one person is incorrect, it's all a choice.

I will say that there's always concentration on things that really don't matter in the long run, but it's a part of the machine around here. Even I get into it every so often... when I'm not workin'. =P
 
I disagree.

1 camera assistant = $300-$350 a day (unless its a student film or something)
1 1200HMI W/Ballast = $130 a day

this is obviously a funny comparison comparing a 1 light to 1 assistant, but one 1200HMI PAR is PLENTY of light to shoot a bedroom interior. and that is just one light. However, this is not what you would obviously use but that is just an example. again, this is all if you are on a BUDGET. One stop of light isn't going to change the budget of the movie. WALK your lamp in a foot

hahaha. this is rediculous
 
Last edited:
filmer1001 said:
I disagree.

1 camera assistant = $300-$350 a day (unless its a student film or something)
1 1200HMI W/Ballast = $130 a day

this is obviously a funny comparison comparing a 1 light to 1 assistant, but one 1200HMI PAR is PLENTY of light to shoot a bedroom interior. and that is just one light. However, this is not what you would obviously use but that is just an example. again, this is all if you are on a BUDGET.

hahaha. this is rediculous
Click to expand...

That's a crazy comparison, actually! How'd you come up with that one.

It's more like

1 Camera Assistant = 500/day (LowBalling isn't nice)

versus

10,000 Watts of Light + 1 Extra Grip (not considering the gaffer and grip you already have) = 1000/day (That's being generous).

As said, being a person that shoots a lot and, from what you've told so far, someone who shoots with budgets large enough to accommodate plenty of lighting it's easy to see that having to deal with an Extra 1.5 stops when lighting will equate to much more than what's being given credit.


The G35 is an excellent addition to the arsenal of adapters out, this goes for any adapter that still loses 1+ stops of light or any system that's going to be rated a faux native 200ASA or lower.

I mean, you shoot film: how often would you just love to shoot 200ASA stock or lower indoors?

Though, this is all I'll say about it! In the end, it's all about knowing what your tools and how they'll effect the rest of the shoot. There's plenty of info floatin' around the forums for people to make educated decisions. If I get the opportunity, you can probably count on me having a G35 as well. Go G35!
 
Last edited:
hahhahahah. this comparison im giving is for a LOW BUDGET show, hence using 35mm ADAPTER. LOW Budget, Less Crew, more of a MEAT GRINDER. hhahaha
 
filmer1001 said:
the kind of filmmaking you are talking about is not the kind i am talking about. no offense, but filmmaking is not a quick process and is not a cheap one.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. There's no one tool for handling all the right situation, and many times less is more. Example: I was on music video shoot in July that was 400 miles away from where I live. I had on hand about $15k worth of equipments including lights, grip gears, adapters, dolly, crane you named it. But what I didn't count was that since I was operating so far from home base, I only have a total crew of five to lug all that stuff around and set up. We only have 2 days and there was ZERO possibility of a reshoot. So the majority of that expensive gears turned out to be dead weight or it took so long to set up that it slowed us down. In retrospect, I would have gotten far better results with less equipment. So don't talk about "filmmaking" as if everything can be solved if you throw money at it. There are plenty of situations where it's just impossible to set up lights because of time constraints or whatever, and those are the time when a light efficient adapter will get that shot for you. Right tool for the right job.
 
I would also disagree with filmer1001. First of all, it is all about the money, no matter if we are talking about indi films or high budget films, the more cost effective, the better. I recently had a night shoot with an SGPro and even tough it isn't one of the slowest adapters, I wished it was faster. I could have shot with a smaller crew, smaller lighting package, it would have taken less time to set up, and it would also have been faster to change location. To make it short, it would have saved me time and money. I am sure the G35 produces very nice images but it definitely comes with a price. I think it is unfair to bash all the other adapters. I personally would rather consider to shoot on red (especially for night shoots) than to shoot on a G35 with a light loss that big. I friend of mine shot on a red (lot's of night scenes) and I was amazed about the quality of the picture even in low light situations (here's an not yet color corrected teaser http://sod.attenhofer.info/media/sod_teaser_mov.html ). Given the tight schedule (5 days for a 20 min short) it turned out pretty well and I think it wouldn't have been possible if he would have needed a bigger light package and a bigger crew...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top